Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[Animaniac93-98]

In a New York Times Magazine article on April 10th, doctor and public health expert Zeke Emmanuel said,

"Larger gatherings — conferences, concerts, sporting events — when people say they’re going to reschedule this conference or graduation event for October 2020, I have no idea how they think that’s a plausible possibility. I think those things will be the last to return. Realistically we’re talking fall 2021 at the earliest."

Think Disney parks can stay closed until Fall 2021?

This is the current top rated comment on this article (and a NYT pick):

"I'd like to The NYTimes convene and share the content of a panel discussion of the following people:

A working parent of a developmentally disabled, autistic, handicapped or otherwise special needs child who depends on services offered in the public schools, services his parents are not able or qualified to provide him.

A person close to retirement whose savings could be decimated or even just evaporate in an economic depression, making the difference between the dignified and comfortable retirement she expected and a miserable, impoverished, and, yes, attenuated old age.

An hourly worker who has been fired or laid off and who soon won't be able to afford food, let alone rent.

A couple who will be unable to pay for their children's educations due to pay cuts, job loss, etc. subsequent to a prolonged shutdown.

A patient whose cancer surgery has been postponed due to wildly inaccurate projections of hospital use somewhere other than NYC.

A worker who has lost her job and therefore her health insurance and can't afford life sustaining medications. People with insurance couldn't afford insulin before this!

Instead, we get a panel of well fed, well paid, and comfortably housed "thinkers" airily tossing out prognostications of endless, untenable shutdowns. I'll bet my group would have much a different discussion and conclusions."

- UpperEastSideGuy

 

[Slpy3270]

This is the current top rated comment on this article article (and a NYT pick):

"I'd like to The NYTimes convene and share the content of a panel discussion of the following people:

A working parent of a developmentally disabled, autistic, handicapped or otherwise special needs child who depends on services offered in the public schools, services his parents are not able or qualified to provide him.

A person close to retirement whose savings could be decimated or even just evaporate in an economic depression, making the difference between the dignified and comfortable retirement she expected and a miserable, impoverished, and, yes, attenuated old age.

An hourly worker who has been fired or laid off and who soon won't be able to afford food, let alone rent.

A couple who will be unable to pay for their children's educations due to pay cuts, job loss, etc. subsequent to a prolonged shutdown.

A patient whose cancer surgery has been postponed due to wildly inaccurate projections of hospital use somewhere other than NYC.

A worker who has lost her job and therefore her health insurance and can't afford life sustaining medications. People with insurance couldn't afford insulin before this!

Instead, we get a panel of well fed, well paid, and comfortably housed "thinkers" airily tossing out prognostications of endless, untenable shutdowns. I'll bet my group would have much a different discussion and conclusions."

- UpperEastSideGuy

One of the biggest consequences of the pandemic is that people will be even less inclined to trust and listen to experts if they say things people don't like or sound indifferent to their problems. That will have dire implications for science, the future of public health and the ability to maintain a universal reality.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

A patient whose cancer surgery has been postponed due to wildly inaccurate projections of hospital use somewhere other than NYC.

This is the part that really gets me... to call doctor visits and surgeries non-essential is just wrong on so many levels.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

The kind of lockdown we are in now where you can't even go outside to the park is not sustainable.

The point of the lockdown was not to end the disease, but to prevent a spike in cases that the healthcare system could not control.

If by the summer we still don't have the medical capacity to handle this then we'll be worse off than when the outbreak first happened because we'll be dealing with the threat of a pandemic AND the social/economic impact of being shut down for several months.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

This is the part that really gets me... to call doctor visits and surgeries non-essential is just wrong on so many levels.

The concern was that we'd need every hospital bed/room/service possible just to deal with this virus. Outside of NY, that has not been the case.

The longer demand does not exceed supply, the harder it will be to justify putting off other medical services.

 

[Jrb1979]

The kind of lockdown we are in now where you can't even go outside to the park is not sustainable.

The point of the lockdown was not to end the disease, but to prevent a spike in cases that the healthcare system could not control.

If by the summer we still don't have the medical capacity to handle this then we'll be worse off than when the outbreak first happened because we'll be dealing with the threat of a pandemic AND the social/economic impact of being shut down for several months.

No it's not sustainable. They will slowly open up things. Large gatherings will last to open.

 

[Kevin_W]

One of the biggest consequences of the pandemic is that people will be even less inclined to trust and listen to experts if they say things people don't like or sound indifferent to their problems. That will have dire implications for science, the future of public health and the ability to maintain a universal reality.

I think there is more to it than that. One of the historical criterion to be an "expert" was knowledge and access to information. Today we all have nearly unlimited access to information.

For instance, I work in the R&D department of a chemical company with a bunch of men and women with PHD's in chemistry. These people have the smarts to be medical doctors, epidemiologists, or whatever they wanted to be. They just chose chemistry. But in a time like this, they can apply that same intelligence and reasoning to medical data to draw their own conclusions. In this case, the training and experience of an epidemiologist might still mean something, but in a truly unprecedented case like this it might not.

 

[LittleBuford]

I think there is more to it than that. One of the historical criterion to be an "expert" was knowledge and access to information. Today we all have nearly unlimited access to information.

For instance, I work in the R&D department of a chemical company with a bunch of men and women with PHD's in chemistry. These people have the smarts to be medical doctors, epidemiologists, or whatever they wanted to be. They just chose chemistry. But in a time like this, they can apply that same intelligence and reasoning to medical data to draw their own conclusions. In this case, the training and experience of an epidemiologist might still mean something, but in a truly unprecedented case like this it might not.

As someone who works in academia, I cannot disagree more. Each branch of expertise entails its own training and methods, and a non-epidemiologist, no matter how well versed in chemistry, is in no way equipped to offer as insightful an opinion as an actual specialist. Having access to information is one thing, but knowing what to do with it is quite another.

 

[flynnibus]

As someone who works in academia, I cannot disagree more. Each branch of expertise entails its own training and methods, and a non-epidemiologist, no matter how well versed in chemistry, is in no way equipped to offer as insightful an opinion as an actual specialist. Having access to information is one thing, but knowing what to do with it is quite another.

When we are comparing Becky on Facebook (or in this case.. Random commenter on a newspaper site) to someone who may be a professional, but not necessarily in that exact discipline.. there is certainly a big advantage to someone who has the foundation in simple critical thinking and logic... over people who never did more than their bare minimum sciences and math... or maybe barely got through high school.

I don't need to be an epidemiologist to understand the basics of what makes sound logic or scientific method. I have an engineering background - but I'm not a PE, nor have I really done any real academic work since college days. But it's my training in methodology and how to digest information that makes me far more suited to be able to screen through material as credible or not... than random guy who maybe super passionate about a topic... but couldn't tell the difference between a shaman and a doctor.

 

[MaximumEd]

We had some nasty storms come through yesterday. Actually had a tornado pass less than a quarter mile from our house. My garden was destroyed and a tree or two down, but no major damage. No power for going on 30 hours. This forum is the only thing keeping me sane. A pandemic with no electricity is a bummer.

 

[Flugell]

We had some nasty storms come through yesterday. Actually had a tornado pass less than a quarter mile from our house. My garden was destroyed and a tree or two down, but no major damage. No power for going on 30 hours. This forum is the only thing keeping me sane. A pandemic with no electricity is a bummer.

That’s a real double whammy. Stay safe

 

[Animaniac93-98]

But it's my training in methodology and how to digest information that makes me far more suited to be able to screen through material as credible or not... than random guy who maybe super passionate about a topic... but couldn't tell the difference between a shaman and a doctor.

"I may not be an expert in everything, but I can think like one"

We've reached peak Flynnibus.

 

[LittleBuford]

When we are comparing Becky on Facebook (or in this case.. Random commenter on a newspaper site) to someone who may be a professional, but not necessarily in that exact discipline.. there is certainly a big advantage to someone who has the foundation in simple critical thinking and logic... over people who never did more than their bare minimum sciences and math... or maybe barely got through high school.

I don't need to be an epidemiologist to understand the basics of what makes sound logic or scientific method. I have an engineering background - but I'm not a PE, nor have I really done any real academic work since college days. But it's my training in methodology and how to digest information that makes me far more suited to be able to screen through material as credible or not... than random guy who maybe super passionate about a topic... but couldn't tell the difference between a shaman and a professor.

This doesn't really bear on my point, though. Of course a complete layperson is going to be less qualified to assess the material than an individual with some background in a related field. But at the end of the day, there's only so much one can make of the information without the specialised skills and training of an epidemiologist.

 

[Nunu]

We had some nasty storms come through yesterday. Actually had a tornado pass less than a quarter mile from our house. My garden was destroyed and a tree or two down, but no major damage. No power for going on 30 hours. This forum is the only thing keeping me sane. A pandemic with no electricity is a bummer.

These forums are helping me keep my sanity, too.

A few days ago, one of our volcanoes (Volcán de Fuego) started acting out, and everyone down here got nervous, fortunately, it calmed down. Nobody needs a natural disaster happening, while trying to deal with a pandemic!

Hope you'll get electricity back soon. Stay safe.

 

[DisneyDoctor]

As someone who works in academia, I cannot disagree more. Each branch of expertise entails its own training and methods, and a non-epidemiologist, no matter how well versed in chemistry, is in no way equipped to offer as insightful an opinion as an actual specialist. Having access to information is one thing, but knowing what to do with it is quite another.

Medical doctors within different fields often don't feel they have the required knowledge to make deductions in another field. Agree with you completely.

 

[MaximumEd]

These forums are helping me keep my sanity, too.

A few days ago, one of our volcanoes (Volcán de Fuego) started acting out, and everyone down here got nervous, fortunately, it calmed down. Nobody needs a natural disaster happening, while trying to deal with a pandemic!

Hope you'll get electricity back soon. Stay safe.

Thanks. Finally got through to the power company. They estimate by 11:45 Wednesday night, so 3 days with no power. Good times.

 

[Kevin_W]

I think there is more to it than that. One of the historical criterion to be an "expert" was knowledge and access to information. Today we all have nearly unlimited access to information.

For instance, I work in the R&D department of a chemical company with a bunch of men and women with PHD's in chemistry. These people have the smarts to be medical doctors, epidemiologists, or whatever they wanted to be. They just chose chemistry. But in a time like this, they can apply that same intelligence and reasoning to medical data to draw their own conclusions. In this case, the training and experience of an epidemiologist might still mean something, but in a truly unprecedented case like this it might not.

I agree that there is more to it than that and my example is simplified. But at the end of the day I still tend to think that data is data and you can put the same tools to analyzing it. The statistician in my department who helps set up ANOVA experiments in the lab also looks at our customer survey data and our safety statistics using the same tools.

As for trust of "experts", it also hasn't helped that since the beginning we've had experts saying different things (even now, look at Sweden vs. Norway) and many of the models/words from their moths have proved to be dead wrong. I keep going back to this point, but in my own state, our health director on Mar 13 said that >110,000 people in the state were likely infected. and we were told at the time that R0 was likely 2 or greater. And we were told that this disease had a high mortality rate. Yet a month later we have 6,500 confirmed cases with <10% positive testing rate. Social distancing or not, it doesn't take a lot of data analysis to figure out that some or all of what we were told was complete bunk. So at that point, many people are going to lose their faith in what an expert says and apply their own data analysis.

 

[Kevin_W]

Thanks. Finally got through to the power company. They estimate by 11:45 Wednesday night, so 3 days with no power. Good times.

Wow, good luck.

 

[LittleBuford]

I agree that there is more to it than that and my example is simplified. But at the end of the day I still tend to think that data is data and you can put the same tools to analyzing it. The statistician in my department who helps set up ANOVA experiments in the lab also looks at our customer survey data and our safety statistics using the same tools.

As for trust of "experts", it also hasn't helped that since the beginning we've had experts saying different things (even now, look at Sweden vs. Norway) and many of the models/words from their moths have proved to be dead wrong. I keep going back to this point, but in my own state, our health director on Mar 13 said that >110,000 people in the state were likely infected. and we were told at the time that R0 was likely 2 or greater. And we were told that this disease had a high mortality rate. Yet a month later we have 6,500 confirmed cases with <10% positive testing rate. Social distancing or not, it doesn't take a lot of data analysis to figure out that some or all of what we were told was complete bunk. So at that point, many people are going to lose their faith in what an expert says and apply their own data analysis.

Experts aren't infallible, nor do they always agree with one another. I'm sure many of us have had the experience of seeking medical care for a particular issue and receiving different opinions from different doctors, only one of whom turned out to be right. Does that mean we should automatically mistrust all doctors, or stop going to medical professionals the next time we're unwell?

A mistaken expert still knows more than someone without the relevant skills and training.

 

[DC0703]

what happens if a vaccine never surfaces? There has yet to be one for SARS and MERS. We as a people cant hide from this forever.

A few things to note:
1) The contagious nature of this disease and the worldwide impact have created a simultaneous race all around the world to quickly find a vaccine. SARS/MERS never had the urgency and money behind them that COVID has. It doesn't guarantee a vaccine will surface in 18 months, but there are over 100 candidates currently in development, which is a strong start.

2) It is not just about finding a vaccine. The more time that passes, the more time to find therapeutic drugs to lessen the impact of the disease, testing to isolate the carriers, and further research to learn more about how it spreads.

3) The term "hide from this forever" is antagonistic and implies that people are cowering in our homes instead of being brave and facing the disease head on. If allowed to spread unchecked with no social restrictions, millions could die from this disease. People are right to be concerned and taking precautions.